Specialist accessory manufacturer Metabones and optics company Caldwell Photographics have jointly announced the 'Speed Booster', a lens adapter for for mounting SLR lenses on APS-C and Micro Four Thirds mirrorless cameras that reduces the focal length by a factor of 0.71x and increases the maximum aperture by 1 stop. The Speed Booster also promises sharper images compared to using the lens with a simple adapter. The first version will allow use of Canon EF lenses on Sony NEX bodies, and will be available this month from Metabones' web site for US$599. Support for additional lens mounts (including Nikon F) and camera systems (including Fujifilm X and Micro Four Thirds) is also planned.

In a technical white paper on the Metabones web site, designers Brian Caldwell and Wilfried Bittner set out the principles behind the Speed Booster and its practical advantages in some detail. In essence it's the opposite of a teleconverter - rather than increasing the focal length and reducing the aperture, it decreases the focal length and increases the aperture. This also promises sharper images compared to using the same lens with a simple, non-optical adapter, as the visibility of aberrations is reduced.

The wideangle converter is made possible by the short flange (i.e. lens mount to sensor) distance of mirrorless cameras, which allows the addition of focal length reducing optics to the space within the adapter between the lens and camera body (in an SLR, the mirror is in the way). It has the effect of shrinking the lens's image circle, which means that it only works with optics designed for larger formats. All full frame lenses should work on APS-C cameras, but lenses designed for APS-C SLRs will likely vignette, although they should work on Micro Four Thirds bodies.

The Speed Booster uses a 4 element/ 4 group optical system, and works with lenses as fast as F1.2. The additional optics mean that it's actually shorter than a conventional adapter, resulting in a more compact overall system. On APS-C mirrorless cameras it offers an effective crop factor of 1.1x, meaning a lens will behave very similarly to how it does on full frame; on Micro Four Thirds the effective crop factor is 1.4x.

The adapter's precise functionality will depend on the lens and body used. The version to use Canon EF lenses on Sony NEX bodies will support electronic aperture setting and image stabilisation, along with (slow) autofocus when used with newer Canon lenses. However the Nikon F mount adapter offers only mechanical aperture setting with G-type lenses; there's no promise of either AF or VR at the moment.

Press release:

Metabones and Caldwell Photographic introduce Speed Booster

Petersburg, VA, USA, January 14, 2013 - Metabones® and Caldwell Photographic jointly announce a revolutionary accessory called Speed Booster™, which mounts between a mirrorless camera and a SLR lens. It increases maximum aperture by 1 stop (hence its name), increases MTF and has a focal length multiplier of 0.71x. For example, the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II lens becomes a 59mm f/0.9 lens on a Sony NEX camera, with increased sharpness. The faster F-stop allows for shallow depth-of-field and a lower ISO setting for decreased noise.

Speed Booster is also particularly pertinent to ultra-wide-angle SLR lenses. The combined focal length multiplier of Speed Booster and an APS-C mirrorless camera is approximately 1.09x, making the combination almost "full-frame". Full-frame ultra-wide-angle SLR lenses largely retain their angle-of-view on an APS-C mirrorless camera when Speed Booster is used.

The optics of Speed Booster is designed by Brian Caldwell, PhD, a veteran of highly-corrected lens designs such as the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO Macro lens with exemplary MTF performance (focusing done with visible light requires no correction whatsoever for the full spectrum from UV to IR).

Speed Booster serves double-duty as a lens mount adapter, from Canon EF lens (but not EF-S) to Sony NEX, with auto-aperture, image stablization, EXIF and (slow) autofocus support for late-model (post-2006) Canon-brand lenses. It will be available in January 2013 from Metabones' web site and its worldwide dealer network for US$599 plus shipping and applicable taxes and duties.

Other mount combinations will follow shortly afterwards. Leica R, ALPA, Contarex, Contax C/Y and Nikon F (with aperture control for G lenses) will be supported, as will Micro 4/3 and Fuji X-mount cameras. Support for other mounts will be added in the future.

Comments

I found the theory behind it: The element in question is called a "Shapley Lens"; it is a convex lens (a collecting lens) rather than a concave (a dispersing lens which is known as a "Barlow Lens") and will indeed decrease the focal length and increase the F-number. The original lens plus the new element will form some sort of an inverted telescope of the "Kepler" type.

I tested it in principles with my Summicron 2/50 in front of an achromatic lens +10 diopt. in front of my m.zuiko 14-42 mm (the 42 mm to simulate some sort of an eyepiece which then will not be needed when the calculations will be done properly) in front of my Olympus Pen E-PM2 (do not laugh!) and it showed that the principles do work (with a tremendous amount of vignetting). Please, do NOT ask for proof photos!

Love the concept of being able to do AF (and MORE!) with existing SLR lenses. I have a bunch of Nikon lenses that I would love to use on my NEX5N with AF. Hoping that more Nikon users chime in and Metabones will listen... please make one for F mount =)

I think they will have to sell a heap of SB adapters for Canon lenses first, the noise around the forums is hardly more than a cackle. The Canon SLR lens forum at the moment seems more interested in bolting a dump FD-EOS adapter on to it to get a dumb SB that does "FD".Apparently there are a lot of people around with odd ex-slr lenses who would like a dumb version (but make it cheap). I presume that everyone who might presently want a Nikon version would actually buy one if it were available?

I think this could be a good idea. It would be neat to be able to use a Shift/Tilt lens witrh my Micro4/3 camera without loosing too much of the angle of view. Only question is: is there any issue with the image circle? Would it work if effectively the booster is not colinear with the lens?

The white paper addresses this specifically and says that the tilt/shift effects are unchanged, so a 24mm lens will work just it does on a full frame camera, except for a slight loss in field of view -- about 25 mm vs 24.

The white paper answers a lot of questions. There's some hype in it, but also some technical info that seems convincing. This seems like an impressive development for cameras with a short flange distance between the lens and the sensor (generally mirrorless cameras).

Well I for one am interested, so:-I have bought a used NEX 5-N from Adorama for $250.00 bucks.Some bits and pieces t go with it battery etc. Ordered the Metabones (what a dreadful name) adapter.Don't have a Canon full frame.But already have enough Canon glass to make it worth my while to try it out.If for an expenditure under $950 I get FF images from my expensive "L" glassware.Followed by a little work in Silky Pix Pro or Capture One Pro and Photoshop,I end up with acceptable images (which I believe I will) then the cash outlay will have made it well worth while and less weight (camera wise) to carry around.

actually avbee is right. Even with prime lenses there come a time when the extra correction you can introduce by adding a new elements is offset by the incremental loss in sharpness and contrast by adding new surfaces. A good f/4 300mm lens is better than a fast shorter tele with a teleconverter no matter how good the converter is. Having said that I somewhere I still have an old 2x teleconverter - at the time a best of breed model - because I uses long lenses rarely and I was more likely to carry the converter in my camera bag then always load myself down with a large tele.

This is true, but you're also taking 36mm worth of coverage and reducing it to cover 24mm. It's similar to scaling a 36mp image down to 24mp - using a pretty good scaling algorithm you'll the perceived sharpness will increase. If the optics are of reasonable quality you'll end up with a pretty good result.

If you want to fuss over this feel free, but any quality adding optics reduces they scaling will probably negate, and more. You might notice a touch more CA in worst-case scenario compositions, and perhaps a bit more distortion, but you can also run your ISO a stop lower. You lose some here, you get some there, it's probably a wash in the end quality-wise.

Comparing digital resolution reduction to optical image circle reduction is comparing apples and oranges. Did anyone read the white paper? The glass and design of this adapter appear to be of the highest quality; read the white paper and look at their image samples. The results are quite wonderful. BTW, the two gentlemen who designed this adapter are also responsible for designing 12 new prime lenses for Panavision's 70mm motion picture system, so I'm betting they got a mirrorless lens adapter right.

As I am doing photography since more than 40 years, I have many first rate classic lenses left (from Nikon, Zeiss to Leica). I tried them by adapters (with lens, without lens) fixed to many: Canon FF, Nikon FF, Oly MFT, Pana FT, Digital Crops Nikon etc. I am not a scientific lab because it’s my hobby. But none of those adapted lenses matched digital sensor requirements. Center might be ok, but that’s it.

If you have an amount of material (your lense) and put another material (lenses by adapter system) in addition between, the output compared to the input is less. Some specifications may be lifted, others will suffer more. The net result is negative. Save your $$$ and buy for the USD 600 savings (from this funny adapter) a good lens for digital to enjoy. There are excellent quality offers.

Digital is the future, adapters are out. Don’t fall in love with things which cannot deliver.

Read the Metabones White Paper specifically the paragraph dealing with legacy glass and AA filters. Besides, lots of people have fun shooting mft cameras and legacy glass. Not everyone cares if every pixel is equally sharp.

Also don't forget that the designer of this thing has designed Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO Macro in the past. He knows optics. Google this lens, it's legendary.

"The optics of Speed Booster is designed by Brian Caldwell, PhD, a veteran of highly-corrected lens designs such as the Coastal Optics 60mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR APO Macro lens with exemplary MTF performance (focusing done with visible light requires no correction whatsoever for the full spectrum from UV to IR)."

Two things - apparently if all the lens elements are enclosed in one lens tube then it is ok, if you add extra elements in an adapter then it isn't. The second one is that popular experience is that adapters are all for telephoto purposes and it is scientific fact that they do decrease perfomance. Ergo the only adapters we know are bad so this quite different design must also be bad. Oh and by the way we never read white papers as we might have it all explained to us in a proper technical fashion. If the white paper was significantly wrong then there would be a huge swarm of real experts saying just that.

For DX or APS-C you reduce the crop factor from 1.5 to 1.06 and pick up 1 f-stop. With most current DX sensors in the 16 - 24mp range, this adapter basically eliminates the need to upgrade to a FF body (assuming you already own FF glass).

For 4/3 sensors the magnification ratio reduces the crop factor to 1.4 from 2.0, giving the edge to the MFT camera vs the DX camera for a slightly wider FOV (and a gain of 1 f stop). Again this assumes you already own FF glass. If you're weight and size consious, this is a pretty good benefit. A restriction here is the dearth of UWA FF glass that would suit landscape photographers. For example a 24mm Nikon AIS would be 35mm on a MFT camera with SB. Probably better to just buy a UWA from Panasonic or Olympus and live with the 2x crop factor.

Other genres could really benefit though, eg street where there's no need for UWA.

If Metabones produces a cheaper version with no electronics that would be interesting for legacy glass.

This is an interesting development indeed. Focusing the image circle from a full frame lens onto a smaller sensor does make good physics sense if you need greater light intensity (+1 stop light) and resolution (MTF increase).

However, I find a lot of info lacking regarding the other irrefutable laws of physics. Additional lens elements between the lens and the sensor entails not just possible diffraction issues as mentioned by some but also additional distortion (pin cushion or barrel), chromatic aberrations, internal reflections and light loss.

The price may well be justified if the 4 additional elements introduced are top drawer ones - ultra low dispersion or fluorite elements or with state of the art coating. The pedigree of the lens designers seem impressive enough.

I suggest you read the Metabones White Paper on the subject - it is quite comprehensive and fairly written. It has not been more than mildly criticized by the experts. I presume that this merits it's acceptance as even the most erudite of scientific papers can be criticised in some ways without destroying their credibility.Price? What price intellectual property, commercialising the idea, and making it work in practice over some considerable obstacles when no other company had thought to adopt these well known optical qualities? Surely knowledge and gumption are worth a premium?

Well, it sounds like optical magic -- or hocus-pocus, depending how we are looking at it. But US$599 is definitely too much for it, and I suspect even US$59.99 is a bit too much.

Considering that for instance Rainbow Imaging M4/3 lens mount adapters go from $4 to about $35 a pop, I think 40 bucks for the MetaBones adapter would be much more like it. At that price, I would give it a try.

If this is magic, then teleconverters are also magic. Teleconverters lengthen the focal length and spread the image on a larger area, so we loose illumination. 1.4X converter spreads the picture to twice the area, thus we loose one f-stop. With this wide angle reducer the image is concentrated to half the area, thus the illumination intensity is doubled = we gain one f-stop. That is all there is to it.

I have to say it is amazing how ignorant photography hobbyists are, read a book about optics, for God's sake! Apparently they do not even know what f-number means and how it is calculated.

Vladimir, apparently a well known optical quality and not a miracle. Was used in photography but mostly in telescopes. Some lenses have been made with this process built into their design. Turning it into an adapter had serious problems as there was normally no space to fit the glass elements inside he camera body. Throwing away the mirror box of a dslr gave the room and on the short flange back distance of some of the new mirrorless mounts allowed room inside the tunnel tube adapter for the glass elements in the unused space. An idea made in heaven. It will not work on a dslr. What is the miracle is why none of the dslr manufacturers have ever seized on this before. Even Pentax with their K-01 - this process would have turned the K-01 into a world beater if Pentax had thought of it.

How about diffraction? Did you look at the device. The light is not being passed through a tiny aperture. It's passing through a large (relative to the wavelength) optical element. Any diffraction will already present in the light output from the lens, which will depend on the aperture chosen. This is just focussing down the light further from the objective lens at (back of the attached lens) and has been designed to introduce almost no additional aberrations and reduce the aberrations already present. The MTF curve is actually improved at least in the centre for NEX!

Now of course I'd like to see the real world results, but this is exciting news

Yes, also surprised that diffraction is not dicussed, but as an advantage.My question is, with the interplay of effective speed, reduced focal length, sharper image and different depth of field, will it allow uis to go back to shooting sharp macros at f22 or 32 and getting things in focus?I'd pay $600 for that.

Want to have something to really kick around? How about vignetting for lenses of about 100mm focal length and upwards.Let her rip boys here is something you can really get your teeth into. A genuine restriction no less is always better than trying to dream one up.Of course long lenses have less reason to be adapted to mirrorless bodies, but have a peck anyway (sly grin).

Why adapters. Make it right the first time or move forward. Adapters are bridging technologies mostly not worth the price and results. The world is full of better solutions today, and even better, and for less money shortly (Moore’s Law still working for the smart). Save the money for something of today. For this adapter price in this forum context, it is just a rip-off.

Although I'd agree in principal what you're saying, the speed by which manufacturers are producing new lenses for the smaller formats is slow (and costly in R&D).

There are plenty of legacy and larger format lenses to take advantage of, so to discard the idea that adapters don't have their place, is to turn on our desire to modify, improve and adapt to those things of the past.

I'm not a Micro Four Thirds user anymore, however, I will always say to those that have that system to not waste time with adapters. It's a far more mature system with plenty of lenses and primes to choose from. In the case however of other systems (like NEX) for example, there's just not enough choice just yet. So for now, adapters is what people look to. Might be a bridge but if it's the only way to get across the water, then I'd rather cross it staying dry.

Lenses are no more adapters built into a tube than adapters are on its own. Already have idiots who don't know the science behind the speed booster claiming it is just another novelty glass like SLR Magic.

I don't think you got past the title "speed booster", this adapter is to use your lens as it was designed; the speed increase is just a side effect of the adapter. They don't claim it will make the lens better, just that the MTF will be higher; more lines in less space. This is pure physics/math.

Progress comes from disputes. So I will value your contribution. Nobody else anyway will understand this discussion much further. Just buy a camera today for USD 600 (the price of the adapter) and enjoy your pictures.

You may be right, but consider three legacy lenses I use a fair amount on m43, 50mm 1.4 105mm 2.5, 180mm 2.8.

This adapter, if built for m43, will (should) reduce by 0.5, not 0.71, and give me a stop of light for each lens. It would be like giving me three new lenses, IF (a big if) the performance is reasonable.

Now100mm 1.4210mm 2.5360mm 2.8

w/ adapter100mm 1.4210mm 2.5360mm 2.850mm 1.0105mm 1.7180mm 2.0

Dreaming? Maybe. But I'm not a pixel peeper. If I can get three new lenses, and the performance is decent, I'm in at a couple of hundred bucks anyway, if not 600. I have so much extra resolution for the sizes I print at, that this adapter could perform much worse than my native lenses, and I would still find it useful.

It does exactly what it says on the tin.There are some people who feel threatened because they invested in FF and didnt expect a whole bunch of cheapo cameras can be just as good IQ wise with a $600 adapter. I say get use to it.

Although I'd love to say that this will happen anytime soon, it certainly would increase the viability of both the Nikon 1 and EOS-M formats, I would think that both those manufacturers would be concerned that this would hurt their dSLR sales. From that standpoint I would only theorize that they would not be motivated at this stage to get this done soon, however it doesn't remove the idea that Metabones might explore this opportunity if the demand calls for it.

However I'd say the choice to choose development of an adapter for EOS-M over the Nikon 1/CX would likely be a more ideal choice as the crop factor of the Nikon 1 is significantly larger than the APS-C or even micro four thirds.

To all the, ahem..., rocket scientists who continue to argue that this device improves the resolution of the native lens, because it projects the information captured onto a smaller area, so there are more lines of resolution per unit area:

I had no idea that the lens on my crappy Canon SX230 HS "Out-resolved" a Nikon D800, because my tiny, fingernail-sized sensor has more information per unit area than the Nikon.

I had no idea that a wider field of view put "more information" into the scene. I thought it just meant that you were taking a different picture. What's amazing to me is that I can take a closeup of a house, then make that house tiny in another picture, and the same amount of information about the house is in both pictures! I don't take away information from the house in the first picture, and replace it with other information in the secon, no, I just keep on adding information!

The alternative is to think that you guys are rather slow, but that's obviously not so.

You want that picture of the house on your crop sensor camera- assuming you cannot use a different lens (lets say the 24mm canon TC Lens), you could back away and fit it in or you could fit this adapter, stop down one extra stop, stay closer and get all the coverage of that lens squeezed into the sensor. Its not about FF vs DX its FF lens ON DX. Have you even read the white paper?

I think I understand as well as any human being on the planet could possibly understand this concept. I've been shooting with legacy lenses adapted to 4/3 format since 2005, and there are literally thousands of pictures on my computer right now taken with legacy lenses.

I understand crop factors, and I understand advanced math.

Changing the crop factor DOES NOT improve resolution. It gives you a different effective focal length. THAT'S IT. Is that nice? Yes. I've repeatedly posted that I want this thing. It looks cool.

It DOES NOT improve resolution. The information from the outside world that makes it to the sensor can not be greater than the information from the outside world that makes it out of the back element of the original lens, sans adapter. That is the source of the information. The adapter can not add more information to that source.

You realize that with this adapter image is not cropped (as much) than with simple mechanical adapter. It projects larger area from a back element into much smaller area. With traditional adapter imaging area of a lens is not changed.

Scenario A: You put a FF lens on a FF camera and point it at a wall plastered with newspaper pages. You now step back such that the lens resolves the text just well enough so that you can read it when fully zooming in on the image captured by the FF sensor. The resolution of the FF lens will determine how far you can step back and will thus determine how many newspaper pages you capture in a readable manner in that way.

Scenario B: Keeping the same wall, the same distance to the wall and the same lens but mounting an APS-C sensor behind it. Obviously, the AOV will be different and you will only have about half of the newspapers in the frame compared to the FF sensor. Thus, you can read only half as many newspaper pages. You have captured only half as much information.

Scenario C:Where the FF sensor used to be you put a focussing screen and then take a photo of that with very good macro lens and an APS-C sensor. You now can read again the same No. of newspapers as in scenario A.

Your crappy SX230 lens of course outresolves your Nikon D800 lenses - in terms of lp/mm. It has to, how else could it be able to even produce close to 12 MP of information when it has 1/16 of the size of a FF sensor?

If it is true that ignorance is bliss, then you are a very happy bunch of gentlemen.

@noirdesir

In scenario C, you explain perfectly how you can hope to capture THE SAME resolution on the APS-C sensor, not MORE INFORMATION. You can not INCREASE RESOLUTION WITH THIS ADAPTER. You could theoretically capture the same information, best case scenario, only with perfect optics. You can not get more information, ever. The limit of information is the quality of the original lens, sans adapter.

Good God, you actually explain my argument perfectly, and STILL THINK YOU"RE RIGHT!

Here, I'll give you another chance, Einstein. Now that you've explained how THE SAME AMOUNT OF INFORMATION, NOT MORE, could be captured on the APS-C sensor, given perfect optics, CARE TO EXPLAIN HOW MORE INFORMATION CAN BE CAPTURED, MORE INFORMATION THAN THE ORIGINAL LENS TAKES IN AND PROJECTS ON THE FF FORMAT?

I take a picture of a landscape with my crappy SX230HS, you take a picture with the D800 and a top of the line lens, we each make a 40x60 print of our captures, and your take is that the SX230HS HAS OUT-RESOLVED THE D800!

You can't make it up. Honest to God, you can't.

I'm not sure that ignorance is bliss, though. I've found life to be better knowing my strengths and weaknesses, and trust me, I have a lot of weaknesses. I'm wrong about things, all the time, in a big way. Just not about this. Oh, and I'm not wrong about it being a bad idea to make up stuff, lie, and stick to my guns. The truth is always the best way to go. I think that others have pointed that out in the past. Cheers.

Bob, you're absolutely right. I agree with you 100%. This Metabones thing is the new snake oil. Their claims about making the lens faster is total BS, but as people have been brainwashed into believing this ridiculous «equivalent aperture» theory, they're sold into those ludicrous claims. I find it hard to believe how many people buy into it and are willing to part with their money - serious money, mind you - for this scam.

manuel and bob, get a room. Bob are you claiming you know more than whatever engineer built this? Do you really think everybody else is wrong (including the engineer) and you are right?When you use a FF lens on a 4/3s or aps c sensor do you also not believe the image will be corner to corner sharper? You seem not to be able to grasp a simple concept. Did you spend too much money on a full frame and this rubs you wrong?

manuel does your equivalency theory makes you right or does my camera being able to use a stop faster of shutter speed make me right? You can say its not true until your blue, and the fact is my shutter speed will be one stop faster. Or do you really believe it will not? is my camera lying to me? brainwashing me?

Manuel: tele extender makes the focal length longer, but does not enlarge the physical aperture. Thus the f-stop value changes to the worse (like from 2.8 to 4 with 1.4X extender).

This wide-angle reducer works exactly the opposite way: it makes the focal length shorter, but does not make the physical aperture smaller. Thus it changes the maximum aperture larger (from 2.8 to 2 with a 0.7X reducer).

It is that simple. Or do you not believe that tele extenders change the maximum aperture either? If you do, I can not help you.

@ManuelVilardeMacedo -- I believe you are incorrect. This does add a stop of light. What it doesn't do is add resolution.

@the reason -- The engineer who designed this does not claim that it adds resolution, not that I've seen. If you have a link, please post it. Don't post a link to the white paper, please. There are no claims in the white paper that this adapter increases resolution. It can't increase the resolution of the original lens. That is physically impossible.

@duartix -- The adapter + lens may increase resolution when compared to the lens without adapter itself on a cropped format, but it will not offer increased resolution over what the lens offers on the lens' native format, which was the the discussion. I really don't understand personalities like yours. You are evidently bright enough to understand this issue, but you try to frame it in a sneaky way to get around the discussion. That's weak.

@bobbarberScenario C captures more information than scenario B. That is what is meant when it is said that this adaptor increases resolution, you capture more information compared to just using an empty tube as adaptor.

Your general problem seems to be that you incapable of even considering that resolution is a term that can describe several things. You can have resolution per millimetre or resolution per picture height. If the lens on your SX230 had the same resolution per millimetre than a typical lens used on a D800, it would have only about a quarter of the (linear) resolution per picture height (and thus a 1/16 of resolution measured in MP).

The point is comparing a native FF lens on a 1/2.33" sensor vs. a dedicated lens for that sensor size not comparing it with a FF lens on a FF sensor. By having a much smaller image circle the SX230 lens can be designed to have a higher (central) resolution, smaller lens elements also allow for higher precision.

In the white paper there are comparisons of MTF curves of the original lens and lens with an adaptor. In the centre of the frame, the MTF values are higher with the adaptor. Unless you claim these MTF curves are pure fabrication, this is unambiguous as possible.

It does not increase the resolution of the lens, however it increases the MTF rating for an APS-C sensor. This has been proven by 50+ years of photographers using focal reducers in astrophotography.

The focal reducer takes the same amount of information it projects on a 24mm height sensor and projects onto the smaller 15.6mm sensor.

Lines per Height is the resolution that a lens can resolve clearly without hitting the Nyquist frequency (the point an image begins to alias). The LP/H of the image projected from the FF to the 1.5 crop sensor should be equal with this adapter. So yes, you are kind of correct, it does not increase in resolution (of the lens). However, the point that everyone is trying to make is that the LP/H of the crop sensor using the same lens would normally be much smaller. For example if a lens was 3200 LP/H on a 5D3/D800 sensor, then it would be around 2200 LP/H on a 60D/ D7000. This adapter brings back 3200 LP/H to a crop sensor which is an increase in resolution.

This doesn't change aperture at all. How would it? By pulling the iris blades further into the lens barrel? The f/ number refers to the width of the orifice formed by the iris blades, so it is inaccurate to say this adapter increases aperture. What it does is change two variables taken into account when it comes to depth of field - the distance needed between the subject and the focal plane and (equivalent) focal length. That's why it appears to have gained an extra f-stop.What I find surprising is that so many people write about this MetaBS as if they had actually used it - when it hasn't even hit the shelves yet...

But people were not saying in this thread that this adapter "increases the MTF rating for an APS-C sensor". They said that it increases the resolution of the lens, which is incorrect.

I am very familiar with adapting legacy lenses to digital cameras. I've been doing it since 2005. I currently shoot m43, sometimes with adapted FF lenses.

IF my goal is MAXIMUM RESOLUTION from my current crop of legacy lenses, I DO NOT buy this adapter, I buy a FF camera. Period. There is no way to get better resolution on m43 or APS-C than on FF with FF legacy lenses, which is what so many people are having trouble understanding. I can only get an increase over the cropped resolution, which is SUB-OPTIMAL to begin with.

The appeal of this adapter to me is 1) more light, and 2) native focal length. Increase over cropped resolution? OK, but again, IF my goal is maximum resolution, I don't go this route.

Of course this also depends on whether or not the sensor is capable of resolving the MTF or LP/H of the projected image. This comes down to sensel sizes and density. The pixel sizes of something like a G12 is 2.7µm. This means it will out resolve the very best full frame dSLR lenses. The lenses made for much smaller sensors have to have a higher MTF rating in order to resolve down that small.

a 22MP FF sensor is approximately 6.5 µm while an 18MP crop sensor is around 4.3 µm. This precisely a factor of 1.5. Meaning if the MTF rating was calculated on a 22MP FF sensor, then a focal reduced version will also be equal on the 18MP sensor because it will have the same density of resolving pixels to the MTF of the lens.

Bob, it's semantics. However you are correct, not an increase in the lens.

However, lets take the fact that the NEX-7 actually has a higher MP count of the 22MP sensor (24.3). Since this adapter is designed for the NEX camera at the moment, this is an advantage. For those who are already using L glass for example and does not have a 5D series camera, means they can purchase a much cheaper NEX-7 and have full frame advantages (including resolution) in a much smaller form factor.

Since you interested in having a genuine discussion, I will tell you that in my experience the best legacy lenses outresolve 4/3 sensors, at least the 10, 12, and 14 mp variety that I've owned, even when cropped, when the lenses are stopped down a little bit.

Some examples, Minolta MD 50mm f1.7, Nikon 105mm f2.5, Nikon 180mm f2.8, etc. At f5.6 or so, these lenses are quite sharp, even cropped. I've compared them in some cases to dedicated lenses, and the difference is not much. For example, I compared the Minolta MD 50mm f3.5 macro to the Oly 50mm f2.0 macro, both at f5.6, and the Oly was better, but not by much. We're talking pixel-peeping here. So there won't be any resolution "jump".

What you get, and what I want, is the old focal length back! That's worth it to me. That and the gain in light.

@ManuelVilardeMacedo the problem is people are using aperture to describe the light gathering ability. In fact, the F range doesn't change, the location of the projected image has changed from the optics. This shouldn't affect the depth of field properties because the lens is still a 50mm F/1.8 with or without the adapter. What the optics does is move the projected point to a different location, but also reduces the size to fit a much smaller sensor.

However focal reducers have been around for decades, it just hasn't been used in this way until now. It changes the cone of light and increase the transmission quality of the light. To say an F/1.8 lens turns into an F/1.2 lens is a bit confusing, but general public understand that. It would be better to say the T/1.6 lens turns into a T/1.1 would be more accurate.

@ ManuelVilardeMacedo: f-number refers to the ratio of focal length divided by the aperture = f:2 = focal length divided by 2. F-number is NOT the aperture, it is RELATIVE aperture: focal length divided by the aperture.

With this gadget the focal length is shortened by a factor of 0.7, but the physical size of the aperture remain the same, so the f-stop values are bigger (or smaller number) by a factor of 0.7 also = one f-stop. Exactly the opposite of a teleconverter. That is all there is to it.

With a 1.4x teleconverter the light entering the lens is spread out on twice the area, so f-number is multiplied by 1.4, like form 2.8 to 4. With this wide-angle converter the light is concentrated on half the area, thus the f-number changes from 2.8 to 2.

Interesting results there Bob, but also one thing that hasn't really been discussed or explored is the Diffraction Aperture Limits. I've also done my own tests with my Hasselblad, Contax and other variants of Carl Zeiss lenses adapted all the way down to my E-P3 and found interesting results (my Hasselblad lenses were surprisingly good on both the 135 format and the micro four thirds).

The density of the sensor is still going to depend on the DLA. DLA cannot be changed by optics as I understand it, therefore, in theory, and I may be wrong on this, even with an increase in MTF of a lens, the DLA limits might restrict the very best at those smaller pixel sizes. I've seen DLA issues with D800E shots I've taken, and I don't believe it can be corrected by optics. From my understanding the DLA is based on photon sizes, and optics cannot shrink a particle of light, only increase the amount that is thrown at it.

Resolution is still going to be dependent on the sensors resolving abilities

Of course it is not going to be better than a full frame lens mounted on a full frame camera. Given the same generation of sensor technology - the image off a 24mp full frame sensor is going to be better than the image off a 24mp APS-C sensor - even with the same amount of light concentrated on it.

However it might be a better way of using full frame lenses, especially wide angles, on an APS-C mirrorless camera than a using a straight non converting adapter.

Let's wait and see some real world image samples taken by competent reviewers before passing judgement on the image quality.

I expect it is going to work much better with some lenses than with others.

"That is exactly what people are saying. Please read the thread. People have posted that this adapter will increase the resolution of the lenses that it is attached to." - bob

Really. Got any examples. If so, why not correct them accurately, rather than this mishmash of confusion you've been demonstrating so far. Seems to me that the person who's been most ambiguous with the terms "resolution" and "information" is you

The tiny sensor does out resolve the bigger one. Look at reviews of with the same lens on a full frame or APS-C and Nikon CX sensor. Also, keep in mind that the smallest format people generally view the output of that thumbnail sized sensor is an equivalent enlargement as the D800 printed at 16x24!

ManuelVilardeMacedo: i do not know anything about «equivalent aperture» either. We are talking real apertures here. I give a simple example: We have a 100mm lens, where the physical maximum aperture is 50mm. F-stop is focal length divided by the physical aperture; this lens has the maximum f-stop of 100/50 = 2, often written as f:2.

Next we place a 1.4X tele extender on this lens. It changes the focal length to 140mm, but naturally the physical aperture remain the same 50mm. 140 divided by 50 is 2.8, or f:2.8, which is the maximum f-stop (speed) of this combination.

Next we take this new invention, which is the exact opposite of a tele extender: wide angle reducer. With 0.7X focal length reduction we get a 70mm lens, but again the physical aperture remains 50mm. Now the maximum relative aperture, or the speed of the lens, is 70/50 = 1.4, or f:1.4.

These new aperture values are not «equivalent apertures», they are real ones.

Fantasyland is fun? You prefer a really, really cheap software shutter over an exquisitely engineered and purposeful shutter/mirror assembly? Like the square wheels on your car? Picturetaking is physics and factbased and not wishful marketing phantasy. Buy a decent camera fgs.

P.S What does a mirror actually has to do with a movie camera or film age?

>>current NEX already capable of doing 10fps, and >>LEA2 adapter provides full time AF, even in video mode.

That means NOTHING if the AF system can't match or outperform my DSLR. NEX is not even on the same planet in this respect.

I'm all for smaller bodies,, and a NEX may be good enough for you artsy-fartsy types with your fancy manual-focus lenses,,, but when it comes to fast AF with pro-quality tele-zooms,, mirrorless ain't even close.

It depends on the situation. For fast action yes, but otherwise PDAF is not miracle maker. Fe. S-AF on my D800 is not as accurate as CDAF on my mirrorless OM-D. The problem seem to be field curvature of certain lenses and focus point accuracy which means focus is not as consistent as with OM-D.

With CDAF there's no need for frustrating AF calibration and focus point coverage is larger.

Having a mirror DOES NOT improve IQ. Its a throw back to the old days of single reflex cameras. So far most manufacturer did not introduce mirrorless on their FF but that doesnt mean people shooting videos need to put up with mirrors. Some had it removed.And did you know without mirrors it does not blank out the viewfinder.

Crow will be on the menu for a lot of people here.It's a giant sham or it works. Not a lot in between it seems.Its humorous to see the rabid flame posts when they have not tested it. I don't know why so many people would risk money and reputation on a sham.

Nikon built it in to a camera in the late 90's. Check out Nikon E series. It converted 35mm lens to 2/3 sensor. Same FOV, DOF, and bokeh. It also "added" 4 stops of light to the lens. Just don't point it at the sun with a 50mm f1.4 on it.

It looks pretty cool to me. I'm not a pixel-peeper, I print most of my photos at small sizes, and I will gladly take an extra stop of light and a wider FOV in exchange for a (slight) loss of resolution. I have a lot of legacy lenses. I want to see this built for m43.

Folks, by reading the white paper it emerges that this adapter is not increasing the resolution of the final picture. What it does, it reduces chromatic aberrations making more details visible. These details are already captured by the lens, but blurred in with the chromatic aberrations that the adapter reduces.

Why is this so difficult to understand? What this adaptor tries to is to capture as much of the integrated resolution over the whole FF frame and project it onto a smaller area. Without any optical elements, only the resolution projected onto the smaller area could be captured.

That means I can take a picture of my T.V. screen, and the information which comes out the back image of the lens, the T.V. screen in real life, IS NOT THE LIMIT OF DETAIL WHICH I CAN HOPE TO CAPTURE!

I just put this handy-dandy little thing on the back of a lens, and DETAILS WHICH WERE NOT CAPTURED FROM REAL LIFE BY THE LENS BECOME APPARENT! THE T.V. SCREEN SHOWS MORE DETAILS IN THE PICTURE USING THIS ADAPTER, THAN IT DOES IN REAL LIFE! AMAZING!

I thought this adapter was a neat idea even when it appeared that the laws of physics would limit it to increasing effective aperture at the (slight) expense of detail. But this thing actually conjures up MORE detail than the lens itself captures! Wow! Gee-whillikers! I'm so excited, I just whacked my knee and my falsies fell out!

Lens on a crop camera = photograph of your TV.Lens on the adapter = photograph of your TV + the surrounding area that is usually cropped out.

Basically you're using the entire 35mm image circle, rather than just the section that falls on the crop camera's sensor.

No one is making the claim that it will collect more detail than a FF camera. That's your own misinterpretation. It will collect almost the same detail as a FF camera, but on a smaller sensor.

As for resolution, consider this thought exercise.You have a lens that can resolve to 1mm.You photograph a ruler with a FF camera and get a photo of 0-30cm, with 1mm resolution visible - a resolution of 300 lines across the photo.Now you photograph the same ruler with a crop camera and get a photo from (approx) 8-22cm - giving you a resolution of 240 lines.Add the adaptor and get almost the same photo as from the full frame. 0-30cm with 300 lines.There's the increase in resolution 240 -> 300.

Take a FF lens that resolves an average 2000 lp/PH (line pairs per picture height). Let that lens project this resolution onto a screen and then let a very good lens take a photo of that screen. If the sensor of that camera is smaller than the image projected on that screen, you have taken the resolution of 2000 lp/PH from a 24x36 mm area ('the screen') and projected it onto a smaller area (the sensor). This is what this adaptor does, only that it intercepts that image so to say in transit before it is fully formed. If the first lens is able to project 2000 lp/PH then the second lens has just to project these 2000 lp/PH onto a smaller area (without adding much degradation of its own) and voila you have a higher resolution because the 2000 lp are not projected onto a smaller area.

You are not talking about resolution, you are talking about equivalent focal length.

Consider: the front of the house fills the frame. Now, with adapter, the front of TWO houses fill the frame. But that doesn't mean that you have more RESOLUTION! It just means that you are taking a different picture. The part of the picture that filled the frame at first, exists at a reduced resolution in the second picture, because it only uses half the pixels.

Honest to God, give it up, please. You are completely wrong, and this is getting ridiculous.

I will repeat, I LIKE the idea of this product, I WANT one, it sounds FREAKIN' AWESOME, it DOES NOT, CAN NOT, INCREASE THE RESOLUTION OF THE ORIGINAL LENS.

I just re-read your posts, and my jaw is practically hanging on the floor in disbelief.

I'll boil down your argument for you, because you are running around in circles trying to prove that something that is false is true.

Your argument is this: that microfilm has MORE RESOLUTION than the source material (e.g., newspapers), because it has more lines of resolution per unit area. Did I get that right? Unbelievable. So according to you guys, if I blow the microfilm back up to the size of the original image, more information will be there than was in the original, correct? Because, "resolution", i.e., information per unit area, is greater in the microfilm.

Does a 1200x1800 pixel image of a scene, printed at 2"x3", have "MORE RESOLUTION" than a 4000x6000 pixel image of the SAME SCENE printed at billboard size, just because the smaller print is denser.

This does not increase the resolution in subject realm (whatever small features the lens resolved on the house will be at most resolved with that adaptor). But you know have two houses in the frame, two houses with the same detail per house means twice as much information.

A FF lens projects information on an area of 24x36 mm. Take a photo of only the central part captures only part of that information, obviously. Take a picture of the whole area, and you can in principle capture all the information.

"Your argument is this: that microfilm has MORE RESOLUTION than the source material (e.g., newspapers), because it has more lines of resolution per unit area. Did I get that right?"

You get it wrong. In your example, how could you get the MTF measurement of the newspaper? You cannot compare resolution of a picture to a thing. What you can do, however, is compare picture vs picture. In your example, compare microfilm vs microfilm, not microfilm vs newspaper.

@bobbarber You need to understand that it's not the sensor, nor the lens, nor the adapter that increases the "resolution". IT IS YOUR FEET!!!You will have more "resolution" (read MTF) because to make an equal framing with the booster, you'll need to get closer to your subject.Contest this or forever be quiet!

A.) take a camera that can hardly resolve 1200lpm-slow AF-no viewfinder-supersmall sensor-heavy incameraprocessing-hardly enough battery power to run a "big" AF-lensB.) stick an adapterring on -that has additional glass in it- lots of electric leads-is generic to lensesC.) stick an expensive lens on-that can resolve 2000lpm-is hardly compatible with the ring

@Sosua: Go and play with a Nikon D600 or D800e and a modern Nikon lens and be amazed. Not Canon, Pentax, Sony etc. This stuff is not nearly as good and let`s not talk about the qualities of crappy cameras getting miraculously better by adding an adapter and a bigger lens. The crap camera is turning out - you guessed it - better crap...

Take a look at this: Nikon E SeriesFrom Wikipedia:The E series uses a unique additional optical system that enables the small sensor to capture the field of view of a 35mm film, with a crop factor of 1. This comes not at the expense of the lightness of the lenses, because the light is bundled to the 2⁄3 inch CCD sensor with approximately 1⁄16 smaller area. The result is approximately 4 stops (24 = 16) more light at the small sensor compared to a full-frame sensor. Therefore the camera has a minimum full-frame sensitivity of ISO 800 which is equivalent to ISO 50 at 2⁄3 inch. As a result the noise of the camera at ISO 800 full-frame is equivalent to ISO 50 of the 2⁄3 inch CCD sensor. Nikon could not reduce sensitivity below 800 ISO full-frame, because the little sensor will be overexposed below 50 ISO.

The exceptional high sensitivity up to 3200 ISO (equivalent 200 ISO, 2⁄3 inch) can be seen as an advantage for indoor or available light photography and is important for professional press and sports use, the customer target area. Although the camera is small for a 90s DSLR, the additional optical system makes the camera deeper compared to today's DSLRs.Standard Nikon F-mount lenses can be used.

In the final analysis what it means is that APS-C and m4/3 lens manufacturers have no excuse creating lenses same size as FF but faster proportionally to the crop size. If the typical f/3.5-5.6 zooms were ok on FF, the APS-C typical zooms should be f/2.3-3.7 and m4/3 should be f/1.7-2.8 to collect the same light on smaller surface. Why do Olympus/Panasonic/Sony produce those terribly slow APS-C/m43 lenses instead?

I agree! If they're not physically smaller by the same proportion than their f-stops should be porportionally smaller at least since they're charging the same price. Glass is glass.

The short flange distance of all of the mirrorless systems though is the only reason this is possible. You couldn't put one of these between a canon APS-C DSLR and a FF lens. That would lengthen the flange distance.

Though something like the EOS-M or K-01 could have come with a magnifyer built into the body, utilizing FF lenses with an APS-C sensor. Maybe a nich for Pentax to exploit? Finally deliver some use for their legacy FF film lenses?

I agree too - up until now, manufacturers could have created high speed M4/3 and APS lenses, but probably saw such lenses as serving a limited niche market and not justified with the increased size/weight/cost being too much of a compromise for consumers. It'll be interesting to see whether this adapter will be the catalyst in creating demand and production of more high speed lenses. If dedicated high speed lenses can have better autofocus than adapted FF lenses, this could be a market niche that will take off. On the other hand, there will still be demand from the average consumer for the slower and more compact lenses, as for those consumers, compactness and low weight are the big selling points for mirrorless cameras.

Noirdesir what you say is a non sense for a simple reason.If there is one lens for Leica which is 0,95 it simply because it is a really specialized lens which is damn expensive to produce to get good result wide open.

The fact there are three for mirroless just show that the marketing understood than most of mirrorless users would break the bank for one those because there are the kind of users who still believe the brightest the lens, the best the high iso, the best the picture. That is so wrong :)

As much as a 54mp 35mm DSLR would be justified I guess. Although smaller pixels on the APS-C do lead to a little more noise if you were comparing straight MP alone. This factor is often exaggerated however, and recent APS-C 24mp sensors show less noise per pixel than the first 35mm DSLR's did.

Yes, it is possible. However, this is "only" a 0.71x magnifier. The more you magnify, the more sensitive you will be to imperfections in the adapter. If you took a medium format 645 lens and magnified it down to 4/3rds or something, that would be a huge magnification. This adapter already loses about 15% of the light in the process. I think one that extreme would lose 90+% of the light negating it's purpose compared to lenses designed for a smaller image sensor. The benefit here is the variety of 35mm lenses available and the small magnification needed.

The resolution only can be increased if the adapter were ideal. The FOV of lens is reduced, so lens contributes less, but the adapter glass more, and it's likely to be limited by the final elements. If you look at the FF lenses and the best m4/3 lenses, both have pretty much the same peak resolution 50-80 l/mm.

forpetessake, it does not need to be ideal. 58% of the len's resolution is wasted using it as an APS-C lens. The magnifier can lose a great deal of light and still provide a benefit. If the quoted f-stop figures are correct and distortion free (they are cropping their magnification down a bit to smooth off corner issues no doubt), the adapter can improve resolution with significant losses.

Of course, this is assuming an existing FF lens for comparison. If the choice is between a FF lens+ this adapter or an equivalently priced and equivalently large APS-C native lens, I don't think the FF lens would deliver more resolution, no.

2) It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a resolution advantage from this product. IMPOSSIBLE. In the vernacular of the discussion of this product on this forum, a 4x6 print from a 1200x1800 pixel image would have "increased resolution" when compared to a 13x19 print from the same 1200x1800 pixel image. That's because the same information is stored in a smaller space, which to some people is increased resolution. IT IS NOT INCREASED RESOLUTION! YOU DO NOT CAPTURE ANY INFORMATION ON A SMALLER SENSOR WITH A FF LENS THAT WOULD NOT BE CAPTURED ON A FF SENSOR. THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE. YOU ARE IN LOONEY, HOCUS-POCUS TERRITORY! COME BACK TO EARTH, PLEASE!

For me the question is whether how the overall performance of FF lenses plus adapter will compare to dedicated M4/3 and APS lenses of the same field of view. Of course, with the adapter, you will get wide open apertures that simply don't exist in the dedicated lens lineups, but what percentage of most photographers' images are done wide open? Once the novelty of having an f1.0 lens wears off, attention will be on how these adapted FF lenses perform at typical shooting apertures, and the performance will need to be good for this product to be successful. The "increased sharpness" that metabones demonstrates in their marketing material is a comparison between the FF lens with the adapter and the same lens used straight on the camera and NOT compared to an equivalent focal length dedicated APS or M4/3 lens. My guess is that the adapted FF lenses will be "good enough" for general shooting, but if you already have and APS/M4/3 lens of same FOV, that'll give better overall performance.

Um how do you get 76mm? It's going to make the 105mm lens a tad longer, so 115.5mm equivalent, and one stop brighter f1.4. To look at it another way, it's concentrating the light from a full image circle to an image circle half as large (one f-stop, 1.4x smaller).

The real way to test this thing is to take an APS-C sensor and look with and without it... cropping the results from the speed booster down to the focal length of the lens without. If it is doing it's job, it will give more light and better detail even after being cropped down to match.

I don't think this adapter is hard to understand. I don't see what all the fuss is about. A 50mm f1.4 prime shoved in front of an APS-C sensor is 75mm f1.4 it's true but it is also wasting 58%!!! of it's light outside the frame of the sensor. This reduces depth of field and low light performance assuming the identical framing (you'd have to back up and focus further away on the APS-C). This magnifying glass if it worked perfectly would more than double the light gathering, focusing down all light from the 50mm f1.4 prime into a tighter and more intense area that covers the APS-C sensor. You'd get, instead of 75mm f1.4, you'd get a lens that's 50mm, f0.9. Gain: brightness, lose: crop zoom.

In the last post I used equivalent focal length but actual f-stop. If you calculate the equivalent aperture of a f0.9 lens on APS-C to FF, you get the F1.4 you started with of course. In my example you're not losing any light.

Course, it doesn't work that magically giving a 1.0x crop factor to APS-C. 1.09x crop for the resultant magnifier + APS-C crop. That's not lossless, but it still pulls in much more light that without the magnifier would be lost around the APS-C lens. It should also put to rest comments that this is impossible. This magnifier loses ~15% of the light from the original lens. It's just without it you're losing ~58%. The equivalent focal length and aperture at FF of that quoted 85mm f1.2 drops to 93mm f1.35 (not sure why they say 59mm APS-C eqiv. That's 1.04x combine crop. At 1.09x combined, it'd be 62mm in APS-C parlence. I think they're speaking Canoneese)

Look at the buildings not the supports of the rail (which are curved, not distorted). I imagine that designing a lens system to take a focused image and scale it down at a fixed offset without significant distortion or aberration is doable (and it looks like it's been done).

According to the white paper, it's no more than about 2% distortion (a reasonably low number) and appears to be barrel. This of course is added to the base lens distortion, so pincushion distorting lenses will have less, whereas barrel distorting ones will have more. Not a huge issue -- and should be easily corrected in postprocessing.

This is what I would like also.. I have lots of lenses in MD mount that I would love to use on my µ4/3 camera with such an optical adapter. I have the 50mm f/1.2 but alas, I have not located a 24mm f/2 for purchase. I still believe an electronic adapter could be made for MD mount lenses. If not for aperture control it could at least be used for registering and recording the aperture set of lenses used, and recorded to the Exif data. It will just have an auto aperture lever actuator for focusing at wide open and then releasing when taking the photo. So with Old Minolta mount lenses the camera can function like they did on a Minolta x370.

I do believe this type of optical adapter would be more desirable for use on the slower long telephoto lenses. At lease for me anyway. As telephotos are typically quite slow. I wonder if there would not be a more optimum design forthcoming for use with telephoto lenses.

I shoot regularly with Pentax prime lenses on Sony NEX. This is already fun and image quality is superb and comparable to what my friend shoots with his Canon 5D, which will make the NEX / Pentax Prime combo look like a dwarf. This adapter would shift favors even more to the NEX. I am wondering why the Pentax K-Mount is not considered yet. They have excellent primes at diminishing size and low cots. Ideal for NEX and Metabones adapter.

You can get a cheap PK to EF adapter and use it with the Canon version of this adapter, as long as your PK lens has an aperture ring.

Same with Olympus OM, M42 screw mount, Contax/Yashica C/Y mount, Kodak/Voigtlander DKL mount, Leica R, and probably a few more, all with infinity focus. Really anything that can be converted to EF mount without correct glass will work.

I'm dying to see what this thing can do with my EF 50mm 1.4 & 85mm F1.2. The possibilities certainly make me look at my lens collection a bit differently. ,,, even my ancient 70-210 f/4 and 28-70 F3.5-4.5 might see the light of day again.

I agree the price is a bit of a sting, but I'm nerdy enough to give it a whirl if the early reviews and example photos are good.

Autofocus speed is very slow and inadequate for most moving subjects. The autofocus speed is unfit for professional use for sure, and it would disappoint most enthusiasts.Only Canon-branded lenses introduced in or after 2006 are officially supported. Autofocus is disabled for older Canon lenses and most third-party lenses, including most Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses and all Contax N lenses modified by Conurus.On NEX camera bodies in camcorder form factor (e.g. FS series), autofocus may be available only in photo mode but not in movie capture mode.Continuous AF is not supported.DMF mode (direct manual focus) is not supported.

Well, this is going to be more relevant for using wide angles FF lens on mirrorless. I wonder though how the distortion control goes and that of perimeter image quality. It would be interesting to see how it perform on those area.

Hope this really works. Gaining a stop of light could be really useful if it can be done without too much loss of quality.

I personally think that $600 for this adaptor is a good price.just look at the price for gaining 1 stop of light from a 50mm f1.8 to a f1.2. Now imagine you can do that with any EF lens.

It would be interesting if they can somehow merge this with a LA-EA2. Gain 1 stop, lose 1/3 stop but gain fast autofocus.

I'm already using the DSLR less and less and the NEX more and more. This adaptor could be another nail in the coffin for me.

But I am really suprised with the amount of whingers and complainers here for something that is not even in production yet. If companies actually listen to you guys, I would be surprised if anything new or innovative get invented. I'm going to wait until it gets professionally reviewed before I have my doubts.

...and make the same print size out of all 3 (a print size large enough to show resolution limits).

Curiously, the white paper article only adresses the open aperture characteristics of adapted lenses and doesn't say much about performance at typical equivalent shooting apertures, where the MTF "gain" may narrow. Plus, construction precision and coating quality will come into play in how the final product affects overall optical performance.

It certainly will be a nice device to use the full image circle of lenses designed for larger formats and I think will add a lot of versatility to small format mirrorless cameras, especially when it comes to wide angle lenses if the overall optical quality is not significantly degraded (as per my suggested test above).

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.